Shri Sher Ali Jafri, Bareilly V. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bareilly

ITA 719/LKW/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3612 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’ LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A.D JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.719/Lkw/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 2(2), Bareilly Vs. Shri Sher Ali Jafri, 195/104-Khan Market, Shastri Nagar, Bareilly PAN AHIPJ 3283B (Respondent) (Appellant) Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Appellant by Shri Harish Gidwani, DR Respondent by 28/03/2022 Date of hearing 27/04/2022 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER T.S. KAPOOR, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Bareilly dated 07.6.2019. 2. The ld. AR at the outset invited our attention to the fact that there is a delay in filing the appeal of 90 days and therefore assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay. Explaining the reasons of delay, the ld. AR submitted that assessee received the orders dated 07.06.2019, on 16.7.2019 and the order of ld. CIT(A) was handed over to the Authorized Representative, CA, Shri Vikas Mehrotra on 18.07.2019 for filing the appeal before ITAT and when the assessee on 10.12.2019 enquired about filing of the appeal he came to know that CA, Vikas Mehrotra has inadvertently forgotten about the filing of the appeal and in this respect our attention was invited to affidavit of Shri Vikas Mehrotra, CA in which he has affirmed that 2 he has forgotten about filing the appeal before Tribunal and where he has also affirmed that he had received the appellate orders on 18.07.2019. Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 3. The ld. DR had no objection to condonation of delay and therefore the delay was condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed his argument. 4. The ld. AR submitted that this is an ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A) and it was prayed that the non appearance of various dates has happened due to the negligence of his counsel and it was prayed that a further opportunity be provided so that assessee so that he may explain his case before ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. DR though objected to the prayer of assessee but fairly agreed that ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order on merits. 6. In view of above facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to ld. CIT(A) who should decide the appeal of the assessee after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to him. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2022) Sd/- Sd/- (A.D. Jain) (T.S. Kapoor) Vice President Accountant Member Aks/– Dtd. 27/04/2022 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File Assistant Registrar